Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
81 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
What is the supreme court of the USA ? |
-The supreme court is the highest court in the US and its decisions cannot be appealed. -To protect constitutional rights. -Its made up of one chief justice and 8 associated justices(this number is fixed by Congress and hasn't changed since )who are nominated by the president and approved by the senate. They hold these positions for life unless they retire, die or are impeached. -No Supreme Court justice has ever been impeached. Though justice and Fortas was nearly impeached but he retired first. -Its responsibilities are to examine laws and government actions to ensure they do not violate the principles laid down in the constitution. |
|
|
How does the executive and legislature check the judiciary ? |
Executive checks -Appoints judges -has power to pardon convicted criminals Legislatures checks -Approves federal judges(Bork rejected and Harriet Miers withdrew) -Has the power to impeach and remove judges -can initiate constitutional amendments.(14th and 16th Dred Scott and ) -can alter the size and structure of courts. -Sets courts budgets
|
|
|
what does the constitution say about the Supreme Court ? |
-To play an appellate role(hears appeals from inferior federal courts) -That federal judges should be appointed by the president and confirmed by the senate by a simple majority. -there was to be a chief justice -Terms of office are to last until retirement or death. -Their continuation of office is subject to good behaviour. -Their salaries are not to be reduced whilst in office. |
|
|
What is judicial review ? |
It is a convention(not written in the constitution) -1803 Marbury v Madison ruled that if it considers them unconstitutional, the Supreme Court can strike down a federal law or action undertaken by the president or others within the executive thus giving it the power of judicial review. -1810 Fletcher v Peck the Supreme Court extended the scope of judicial review and assumed the right to rule on the constitutionality of state laws. -Examples of judicial review on legislation is Reno v ACLU which struck down the communications decency act or acts of government e.g Youngstown Steel and Tube Co v Sawyer ruled the president had no right to take over strike hit steel plants in the Korean War. |
|
|
The Warren Court (1954 -69) |
-Appointed by IKE and later described as 'the biggest damn fool mistake' he ever made. -The courts constitutional interpretation was governed by loose constructionist thinking with a commitment to judicial activist. Memerable rulings are Brown v the Board 1954, Engal v Vitale 1962 and Gideon v Wainwright 1963 |
|
|
The Burger Court (1969-86) 1971 Swann v Charlotte-Mecklenburg mandated bussing of school students across cities . -In 1973 Roe v Wade women had the constitutional right to abortion. -Contrary rulings 1972 Furman v Georgia declared the death penalty laws unconstitutional. 1976 Gregg V Georgia reinstated capital punishment. -1978 University of California Regents v Bakke only permitted affirmative action in limited circumstances. |
-Burgers court rulings based on loose loose constructionism and guided by a spirit of judicial activism. These inconsistencies are because -court is not a political institution. -Ideology and philosophy play a part moulding judicial rulings. -The court responds to public opinion -shaped by past precedents or stare decisis and the constitutional arguments submitted by interest groups in amicus curiae briefs. -Public opinion shifted to the right. |
|
|
who makes up the Supreme Court ? |
-9 members of the Supreme Court. -1 chief justice and 8 associate justices. -The number is fixed and has remained unchanged since 1869. -They are appointed by the president and confirmed by a simple majority in the Senate. -They Hold office for life during good behaviour until they decide to retire or die. -In the impeachment process the House must impeach by a simple majority and then the Senate must try with a two thirds majority needed to find them guilty. -No Supreme Court justice has ever been impeached. -The chief justice sets the tone for the court. |
|
|
what are the philosophy of justices ? Strict Constructionist- A justice of the Supreme Court who interprets the Constitution in a strict, literal and conservative fashion, and who tends to stress the retention of as much power as possible by the governments of individual states . They look for the original intent of the founding fathers and are often appointed by Republican presidents. Unelected judges should restrain themselves from exeecing their power to interpret the law. -Critics say this approach leads to very narrow interpretation of the constitution and very limited development of civil liberties. |
-The constitution can be amended in order to respond to changes in society and these changes should be made by elected politicians rather than unelected judges. Loose constructionist-A justice of the Supreme Court who interprets the Constitution in a loose or liberal fashion, and who tends to stress the broad grants of power to the federal government. They tend to read elements into the document and are appointed by Democrat presidents. -Critics say they are legislating from the bench and they undermined the constitutions role in separating the powers of the 3 branches of the federal government. -Kennedy is a swing justice. In 2006-07 24 cases were decided by 5-4 and Kennedy was in the majority every time and he was in the majority 97% of the time during that term. |
|
|
what is judicial activism and restraint ? Judicial activism-An approach to judicial decision making which holds that a judge should use his or her position to promote desirable social ends. |
-E.g Brown v the Board 1954 and Miranda v Arizona 1966 moving society along in the area of black civil rights and the rights of arrested people. -judicial activism sees the court as an equal branch and it seeks to be a player equal to the other branches in shaping policy. -Legislating from the bench. Judicial restraint- An approach to judicial decision making which holds that a judge should defer to the legislative and executive branches, which are politically accountable to voters, and should put great stress on the precedent established in previous cases. -stress the importance of stare decisis. -Deferential to the legislative and executive branches of government as they are directly accountable to the voters. |
|
|
what are some recent gay rights Supreme Court cases ? |
2013 United States V Windsor struck down part of the defence of marriage act. In this case the court split down ideological lines with Kennedy joining the liberals in this case. Refusal to hear Hollingsworth v Perry. The court declined to consider attempts to uphold proposition 8, a California ballot initiative that had prohibited same sex marriage in the state.These rulings are important because they show the relationship between court rulings and public opinion. ATtitudes toward same sex marriage are more tolerant in 1996 26%backed same sex marriage in 2013 the number of respondents to the poll who supported same sex marriage had increased to 55%. These ruling do not show a shift in the overall direction of the Roberts court it just shows that the court has a mixed character. |
|
|
Is the Robert's court activist or restrained ? |
-Robert's said he would act life an umpire. Although his umpiring has been heavily biased towards conservative batters on abortion, gun control, affirmative action, campaign finance, criminal sentencing and capital punishment. -Roberts has recently blocked the largest ever sex descrimination case, rejected the appeals of former Iraqi detainees who claimed abuse at Abu Ghraib and struck down Arizona law giving extra cash to publically funded candidates facing privately funded rivals. -Judicial activism can have both conservative and liberal outcomes depending on the laws overturned. -The Robert's Court issued mostly conservative rulings however not uniformly so with the Snyder and Brown cases. -Issued important rulings on varied and contentious topics. |
|
|
Is the US Supreme Court a bastion of conservatism ? -Clapper v Amnesty International denied a challenge to the legality clause that had extended the surveillence power of the national security agency. -Salinas v Texas upheld the use of an accused remaining silent to be used as evidence in a trail. -AMerican exress co v Italian Colors Restaurant made it more difficult for small businesses to take action against big corporations. |
conservative -Shelby county v Holder struck down section 6 of the voting rights act which required certain states a poor record for promoting racial equality to submit any planned changes to their election arrangments to federal government for prior approval. -Fisher V University of Texas at Austin dealt with affirmative action. The case involved a white plaintiff who felt descriminated against due to the university's policies on racial diversity. She argued that minority candidates secured places although their test scores were lower than hers, they remanded the case back to a lower court asking them to reconsider its verdict. -Maryland V King upheld the right of the authorities to take and use DNA samples without a specific reason. |
|
|
Is the US Supreme Court a beacon of liberalism ? |
- Sebalius case found that the affordable health care for america act was not unconstituional -United states v Windsor dealt with the constitutionality of the defence of marriage act. -Hollingsworth v Perry which dealt with the proposition 8, a citizens initiative measure in California which banned gay marriage. So overall the court can swing both ways. |
|
|
How do the justices ideologys compare to there predessors ? |
6 of them are more conservative and only 1 is more liberal. |
|
|
Can a president ideologically reshape the court ? |
yes if -A vacancy occurs (no vacancy from 1994-2005) -If the nominee is of a different ideology from the predecessor. -If the senate confirms the nominee( Bork and Miers not confirmed) -If the justice performs as expected. |
|
|
How does the appointment and confirmation process work ? -The senate confirmation process begins in the Senate Judiciary Committee where hearings are held and then the committee votes on whether or not to recommend further action if they vote in favour of the nominee then they will more than likely be confirmed, if the vote is close or lost then defeat is almost certain e.g the defeat of Bork's nomination was a prelude to his defeat for being too conservative and too closely related to Nixon. It ends on the floor of the Senate with a simple majority needed to confirm the nominee. -(If the hearings in the Senate Judiciary Committee don't go well then a candidate may be tempted to withdraw e.g Harriet Miers after hostility from members of her own party) -Presidents can use nominations to gain support of key groups( Obama and Sotomayor and Kagen) |
-A vacancy occurs through voluntary retirement, death or impeachment. (Carter made none in his 4 years) -the president instigates a search for possible nominees and interviews short listed candidates. (He seeks advice from his political advisors,key members of Congress from his own party, groups such as the ABA but GWb preferred the right federalist society and personal friends and confidants) -The president announces his nomination. (It has become a tradition for the ABA to give the nomination a rating, well qualified, qualified and not qualified. Its a significant problem for a candidate not to get a well qualified rating.) |
|
|
Who were Obama's Supreme Court nominees ? |
Sonia Sotomayor She replaced Scouter he was a moderate liberal and she is also a moderate liberal so she was unlikely to change the philosophical balance. Sotomayor was a hispanic federal appeal court judge. She said that she wouldn't be an echo chamber for Obama 'i wouldn't approach the issue of judging the way the president does' Elena Kagan She replaced John Paul Stevens. She was previously the solicitor general. She said she would 'show even-handedness and impartiality. |
|
|
what are the problems with the appointment and confirmation process ? |
Its politicized |
|
|
how does the president politicize the appointment and confirmation process ? |
-The president is tempted to choose a justice who's political and judicial philosophy reflects there own, the two Clinton nominees are hold consistently liberal positions and the two most conservative members of the court were appointed by Reagan and Bush. -Presidents use a litmus test on court nominees, often scrutinising their previous judgments on controversial cases. Though nominees may not act as the president who nominated them expect. Scouters decisions whilst on the court would find little favour with president Bush. -This nomination is a chance for a president to choose a member of the highest court in the nation, who will shape the courts thinking for 15-20 years. |
|
|
How does the Senate politicize the appointment and confirmation process ? Democrat opponents of Bork on the Senate Judicial Committee mobilised an array of liberal interest groups. The National Abortion Rights Action League and the National Organisation for Women ran negative ads about Bork that cost in the region of $15 million. -President Bush's nomination Clarence Thomas had his qualifications questioned along with his conservative philosophy and the allegations of sexual harassment. -Thomas said that the Senates work 'this is a circus.Its a national disgrace.' The vote for Thomas was almost entirely along party lines. |
-Senator from the presidents party tend to ask soft questions that don't probe whether the candidate is well qualified for the position, so provided that the presidents party controls the Senate they can get through anyone they want which is not a recipe for effective checks and balances. -Senators from the opposition party tend to look for opportunities to attack and embarrass the nominee, often more interested in scandal than competance, this happened in the Thomas hearings. The confirmation process is characterised by invasive scrutiny and punishing publicity which discourages qualified candidates. Theodore Olsen claimed that the Senate had abandoned it role of advice and consent for a policy of search and destroy. -justices are now confirmed along party lines another indicator of the politicised process. |
|
|
how does the media politicise the appointment and confirmation process ? |
- the media conduct a feeding frenzy often concerned with matters of little relevance to the nominees judicial qualifications. |
|
|
Why are Supreme Court nominations so important ? |
-They occur infrequently. (appointments to the cabinet happen 2-3 times a year whereas Supreme Court appointments come up every couple of years and sometimes there are no vacancies at all from 1994 and 2005. -Appointments are for life -Only nine members of the court so making an appointment is replacing one ninth of the court. In the House you need 217 to agree with you to get something done but in the Supreme Court you just need 5. -The Supreme Court is a powerful institution with the power of judicial review. The power of judicial review can profoundly affect the lives of ordinary Americans as the court makes decisions on issues such as abortion. |
|
|
How could it be argued that the Supreme Court has too much power ? |
-'we are under the constitution and the constitution is what the judges say it is' -Its power of judicial review -Its an unelected body. so there powers are unchecked by election cycles and term limits. -It has used its power to bring about change. It has used its power to bring about positive social changes e.g Brown v The Board of education Topeka. But other decisions have affected other parts of society,. FEC v Citizens United had an impact on the amount of money that flows into elections. -Overall the Supreme Courts self given power of judicial review, couples with the life terms of its members and their ability to interpret the constitution can result in controversial and significant decisions, is proof that the Supreme Court has too much power. called a quasi legislative body. |
|
|
how could it be argued that the Supreme Court doesn't have too much power ? |
- People often just pick on decisions that they philosophically disapprove of- for conservatives it will be Roe v Wade and for liberals it will be Bush v Gore. -Its membership is checked by both the president who nominates and the Senate who confirm. -The check of impeachment( Justice Abe Fortas resigned from the court in 1969 rather than face impeachment. -Congress also has the power to initiate a constitutional amendment to negate the affect of a decision by the court. -Congress controls the number of SC judges, a president(as FDR tried to do) can try to pack the court by creating more judges to get a difficult decision through. FDR eventually got a compliant court after the retirement of one judge. They see themselves as a boundry patrol saying when the other branches have gone too far, protecting minorities from the tyranny of the majority. -The court has no initiation power os its a reactionary body and it can' enforce its rulings. -Its susceptible to public opinion. -Supreme Court justices are servants to the law. Chief justice Roberts said they are 'servants, umpires and have a limited role' |
|
|
Supreme Court rulings, 2013-2014 |
McCutcheon v FEC -Struck down the limits on how much individuals can contribute to political campaigns. Harris v Quinn-Ruled that home care workers who dont want to join a union don't have to pay union fees. Burwell v Hobby Lobby-Rules that closely held firms with religious objections don't have to pay for their employees contraceptives Riley v California-Barred police searches of suspects cell phones without a warrant. NLRB v Noel Canning -Curbed the power of presidents to make appoinments when the senate is in recess McCullen v Coakly -The massachusett's 35 foot buffer zone keeping peaceful protestors away from abortion clinics infringed free speech rights |
|
|
McCullock v Maryland |
This was a landmark case because it established that there are implied powers in the constitution as wall as enumerated powers. these are what loose constructionists rely on in order to allow it act as a quasi legislative body. |
|
|
Examples of Congress overturning SC judgments by amending the constitution |
Dred Scott was overturned by the 14th amendment. Pollock v Farmers Trust and Loan ruled federal income tax illegal but this was overturned by the 16th amendment. |
|
|
what factor influence the SC rulings ? |
-The wording of the constitution( strict and loose interpretations. -Stare decisis -judicial ideology -interest groups present amicus curiae briefs to the court, those who can afford the best lawyers may be at an advantage. -the public mood(zeitgeist) the court has shifted its ground in responses to changes in the public mood. One SC judge said 'the court should never be affected by the weather of the day but of course they are affected by the climate of the era' -administration lobbying |
|
|
Is the SC a political or judicial institution ? -Stare decisis constrains the rulings that are made. -Interest groups play a role in setting the court agenda through sponsoring cases and presenting amicus curiae briefs. -Because they are appointed for life, judges are largely insulated from public pressures and the other branches of government. -decisions are often determined by technical and legal factors. -Judges do not act or perceive themselves as politicians; they have to distinguish between their personal preferences and the requirements of the legal process. They take an oath that they will do what they must not what they want and give reasons for and justify their decisions to the other justices and convince the US legal community that it is right. |
-The appointment processs is highly political. -Court rulings have a political impact Bush v Gore and Citizens United v FEC. -The court can only act through litigation. -COurt rulings appear to be shaped in part by long term political attitudes and pressures. -Although the supreme court can only hear cases referred to them by other courts, which cases the judges choose to grant certiorari is entirely up to them as they only hear 1% of cases brought before them so arguably their choice is political |
|
|
what are the limits and constraints on the SC ? -Stare decisis. though relying on precedent is difficult with issues such as genetic engineering and electronic bugging. -Congress can increase the number of judges and impeach them. |
-It cannot enforce its rulings ( Cherokee Nation v Georgia and Brown v Board and Hamdan v Rumsfeld) -It has no power of initiative -It cannot in the long run ignore public opinion. Its legitimacy depends on it popular credibility. Dred Scott so incensed many in the north it was one of the factors which led to the civil war. widespread backing of the death penalty led the SC to retreat from its original position in Furman v Georgia by ruling again in Gregg v Georgia. -Congress can overule the SC by amending the Constitution e,g the 14th and 16th amendments overturning Dred Scott and Farmers trust and loan. -Some instances the SC exercises self restraint and can be reluctant to enter the political thicket. |
|
|
Why is the SC so important ? |
-Has the power of constitutional interpretation. -Resolves conflicts between branches and layers of government. -Has the power of judicial review. |
|
|
What is judicial independance ? |
-Strict separation between judiciary and other branches of government. -Judges have security of tenure -Only be removed through impeachment for reasons of personal conduct. |
|
|
Significant rulings in 2013-14 term -National labor relations board v Noel Canning (presidential power of recess appointments) |
-McCutcheon v FEC ( campaign finance) It struck down the limit on the total amount wealthy donars could contribute to political committees and candidates. -McCullen v Coakely (Freedom of speech with the buffer zones around abortion clinics in ) -Town of Greece v Galloway (freedom of religion/ prayer in public) town hall meetings can be started with prayers. -Burnwell v Hobby Lobby (freedom of religion/Obamacare) -Abramski v US (gun control) -Riley v California(warentless searches of cell phone digital content this is a clear example that an eighteenth century Constitution can be applicable in the 21st century. -Hall v Florida(death penalty) -Schuette v Coalition to defend affirmative action(affirmative action) |
|
|
The Supreme Court 2013-14 term |
Unanimous decisions up 65% decided by a unanimous court, the average of the 5 previous terms had been just 44%. 5-4 decisions down 14% this term down from 29%. Still the Kennedy court with him being in the majority most frequently over the past 6 terms of the court. In all ten of the 5-4 decisions he was in the majority. though is it Kennedy leadership or Kennedy followership -the Roberts court has wanted to extend individuals rights to groups. Roberts is young so he can play the long game. hes clearly a conservative but hes not an ideologue so hes flexible enough to win over liberals and he has sided with them e.g NFIB v Sebalius. the court is conservative bent. |
|
|
Marbury v Madison 1803 |
ruled that the Sc had the power to strike down federal legislation.
|
|
|
Fletcher v Peck 1810
|
ruled the SC had the right to strike down state legislation.
|
|
|
Dred Scott v Sandford 1857
|
ruled that slaves and their descendants were not protected by the constitution.
|
|
|
Pollock v Farmers Loan and trust 1895
|
ruled federal income tax illegal.
|
|
|
Plessey v Ferguson 1896
|
ruled that segregated railways carriages were constitutional.
|
|
|
Youngstown steel and Tube Co v Sawyer 1952
|
Ruled that the president as commander in chief had no right to take over strike hit steel plants in the Korean war.
|
|
|
Brown v Board of education, Topeka 1954
|
ruled that segregated school were unconstitutional.
|
|
|
Engel v Vitale 1972
|
ruled prayer in schools unconstitutional, so students can opt out of saying them.
|
|
|
Swann v Charlotte Meclkenburg 1971
|
Established bussing to end de facto segregation.
|
|
|
Furman v Georgia 1972
|
Ruled that the death penalty was illegal
|
|
|
roe v wade 1973
|
Establsihed abortion as a constitutional right.
|
|
|
Nixon v US 1974
|
Ruled that the white house tapes had to be handed over.
|
|
|
Gregg v Georgia 1976
|
ruled that the death penalty was a matter for the states.
|
|
|
Buckley v Valeo 1976
|
ruled as illegal limits on spending their own money by candidates in elections.
|
|
|
University of California regents v Bakke 1978
|
limited affirmative action
|
|
|
Lopez v US 1995
|
ruled gun free zones in schools illegal
|
|
|
Reno v aclu 1997
|
ruled that internet pornography is a constitutional right.
|
|
|
Clinton v New York city 1998
|
ended the line item veto
|
|
|
Bush v Gore 2000
|
stopped the florida recounts
|
|
|
Gonzales v Oregon 2006
|
ruled that it was up to the states to have death with dignity acts.
|
|
|
league of latin American citizens v perry 2006
|
ruled Gerrymandering is legal.
|
|
|
Handan v Rumsfeld 2006
|
ruled military trails at Guantanamo illegal
|
|
|
baze v rees 2008
|
ruled that lethal injection did not violate the 8th amendment prohibiting cruel and unusual punishment.
|
|
|
Citizens united v federal election commission 2010
|
ruled that spending limits by companies or unions during elections are illegal
|
|
|
NFIB v sebelius 2012
|
the SC found the individual mandate was unconstitutional as it was compelling commerce not regulating it. -Roberts declared it a tax and that congress had the right to impose tax -this case is an example of judicial restraint. |
|
|
Snyder v phelps 2011
|
established the right of the westboro Baptist church to shout things like that god for dead soldier at funerals of dead US soldiers.
|
|
|
Brown v entertainments merchants association 2011
|
declared a California state law banning the sale of violent video games to children unconstitutional.
|
|
|
ARIZONA FREE ENTERPRISE V BENNET 2011
|
struck down Arizona's clean elections act providing matching funds for candidates not spending more than $500 of their own money. |
|
|
Shelby county v Holder 2013
|
pulled the plug on section 4 of the Voting rights act 1965 which required particular districts to have to havwe any changes in their electoral procedure pre agreed by the federal government.. the voting rights act was introduced to address entrenched racial discrimination in voting.
|
|
|
Arizona v the inter tribal council of Arizona 2012
|
relating to voter id, struck down an attempt by Arizona to make potential voters show proof of US citizenship rather than just attesting to it under penalty of perjury as under federal law.
|
|
|
Fisher v University of Texas 2012
|
relating to affirmative action, ruled that courts msust look closely at university admissions policies regarding race.
|
|
|
Hollingsworth v Perry 2013
|
upheld a lower courts ruling that Californias proposition 8 initiative outlawing same sex marriage was unconstitutional.
|
|
|
Us v Windsor 2013
|
ruled that doma violated the 5th amendments due process clause and in effect that same sex marriages enjoyed the same protections as other marriages.
|
|
|
schuette v coalition to defend affirmative action 2014
|
ruled that it is permissible for states to amend individual state constitutions to ban affirmative actions and that it doesn't violate the 14th amendment equal protection clause.
|
|
|
McCutcheon v FEC 2014
|
ruled that aggregate contribution limits to campaign finance are unconstitutional. it overruled buckley v valeo by indicating that aggregate spending limits violated 1st amendment rights |
|
|
Burwell v Hobby Lobby 2014
|
owners of closely held for profit corportaions could on request exempt them selves from this clause of the Affordable care act on religious grounds.
|
|
|
Is the Roberts court more activist or restrained ?
|
-Kennedy whether the conservative or the liberal block emerges victorious. one fifth of cases were 5-4 decisions and 90% of those were split down ideological lines. and 71% went to the conservatives thanks to Kennedy. -The Robert's court has overturned precedent and struck down laws as unconstitutional less often even than its relatively restrained predecessors. -It has issued conservative decisions 58% of the time. Burger and Rehnquist issued conservative rulings 55% of the time. though Warren issued conservative rulings only 34% of the time. -There's been a lack of judicial activism across the 4 courts with Less than 3 precedents overturned per term on average. -The Rehnquist Court overruled 45 precedents in 18 years with 60% of these decisions reaching a conservative result. -The Robert's court overruled 8 precedents in theh first 5 years with all but one reaching a conservative outcome. -4 of the most conservative justices to sit on the court since 1937 do so now and justice Kennedy in one of the 10 most conservative justices in 74 years. -Its conservatism is far from uniform on free speech, war on terror and the separation of powers. |
|
|
How does the judiciary protect the rights of US citizens ? 1st amendment (vigorously upheld) -engal v vitale ruled prayer in schools unconstitutional. -Reno v ACLU ruled that internet pornography is constitutional. -Texas v Johnson ruled that burning the American flag is a constitutional right. -Citizens United v fec -Brown v Entertainment Merchants Association declared a state law banning the sale of violent video games to children unconstitutional -Arizona Free enterprise v Bennett 2011 struck down Arizonas clean elections act that provided extra matching funds. |
-Snyder v Phelps 2011 -McCullen v Coakley declared unconstitutional a massachusetts state law setting a 35 foot buffer zone around abortion clinics. Town of Greece v Galloway ruled that legislative bodies such a town and city councils can begin their meetings with prayer. Burwell v Hobby Lobby a provision of the affordable care act stating that family owned corporations should pay for health insurance coverage for contraception violated the religious freedom restoration act. this was another case that stated corporation are people. Not only did it go against the presidents flagship reform legislation but it also went against the administrations stance favouring womens rights. |
|
|
how does the SC protect 2nd amendment rights ?
|
2nd Amendment (vigorously upheld) -Lopez v US ruled that gun free zones in schools is illegal. -DC v Heller 2008 -Abramski v US required gun buyers to disclose that they are making a purchase for someone else. |
|
|
how does the SC protect 4th amendments rights ?
|
4th amendment means that you have to have very good evidence in order to get a court order allowing the police into your house. -US v Jones 2011 -Riley v California struck down a California state law which permitted the warrantless seizure of a persons cell phone, this is an example of how the Supreme Court can apply to the 21st century. |
|
|
how does the SC protect 5th amendment rights ?
|
5th amendment -Hamden v Rumsfeld ruled that military tribunals in guantanamo Bay are illegal. |
|
|
How does the SC protect 8th amendment rights ?
|
8th amendment not upheld -Gregg v Georgia gave the sates the choice over the death penalty -Baze v Rees ruled lethal injections legal. -Atkins v Virginia 2002 the court stated that the execution of mentally retarded criminals infringed the 8th amendment -Hall v Florida ruled unconstitutional state laws that drew such a rigid numerical line as an inmate in Florida who scored above 70 on an IQ test could be executed but one with an IQ test bellow 70 couldn't. |
|
|
How does the SC protect 9th amendment rights ?
|
9th amendment were rights for the people e.g Roe v Wade. -Gregg v Georgia -Gonzales v Oregon ruled that it is up to the states to have death with dignity acts. |
|
|
How does the SC protect 10th amendment rights ?
|
10th amendment US v Morrison |
|
|
how does the SC protect 14th amendment rights ? -The 14th amendment uses the word persons which has proved vital for upholding women's rights -Schuette v coalition to defend affirmative action states which placed a constitutional ban on race based descrimination on admission to state run universities do not violate the equal protection cause of the 14th amendment -many felt the US constitution did not sufficiently protect citizens or states against an over whelming executive so the first 10 amendments of the bill of rights were added |
-The rulings are effected by the Zeitgeist which means they keep fairly up to date with the rights of people. -Bill of rights entrenched in the constitution -Activist courts of loose construction extend rights usually. -Weinburger v Weisenfend 1975 extended mothers benefits to fathers aswell. Hoyt v Florida 1961 established that a jury of your peers for women would mean that there must be women on the jury. This was brought about when a women had a jury of all men after stabbing her abusive husband. Presidential power National labour relations board v Noel Canning |
|
|
How hasn't the SC protected the rights of Us citizens ? |
-The equal rights amendment is 3 states short of ratification. -we the people was an elite group of white propery owners. Article 4 had a fugitive slave clause -The SC is unable to enforce its rulings. -Dred Scott v Sandford the SC ruled that black americans and their descendants were not protected by the constitution but then the 14th amendment was passed. -Plessy v Ferguson ruled that segregated rail carriages were legal as long as they were separate but equal. -brown v Board ruled that segregation was unconstitutional reflecting a different zeitgeist. This ruling was enforced by IKE. 1963 inly 0.45% of black students went to school with any whites by 1971 it was nearly 86%. This was a result of the civil rights act. |
|
|
How hasn't the SC protected the rights of Us citizens ? |
-japanese americans were interned during the second world war by executive order this violated the 5th and 6th amendments. -Congress passed the Patriot Act which led to a raft of antiterrorism measures such as wiretapping and surveillence which many would argue are unconstitutional but it wasn't declared so by the SC. -In Quantanamo Bay prisoners were detained without habeas corpus rights or due process of law. They were called enemy combatants rather than prisoners of war, so they didn't have to be treated according to the geneva convention ad were tried by military tribunals. -Hamden v Rumsfeld SC ruled that the rights in the US constitution apply not only to the USA but those in Us territories. Guantanamo Bay is still in existance because the SC cannot enforce its rulings. |
